> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:54:51 +0000 (GMT), > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:> >On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Keith Owens wrote:> >> >> I'm not sure why you think this can be used for module persistent> >> storage. If a module calls inter_module_register() on load, it should> >> call inter_module_unregister() on unload. All the registered data> >> points into the loaded module, remove the module and the storage> >> disappears as well.> >> >You can kmalloc() both the im_name and userdata arguments to> >inter_module_register and you ought to be able to pass NULL as the owner.> > Ughh! That is definitely abusing the inter_module functions. If we> need persistent module storage then we should add a clean interface to> do it instead of using kmalloc and overloading inter_module_xxx.

Why? It's got to get kmalloc'd anyway, and code reuse is_good_. Experiment with different names for inter_module_xxx until youfeel happier :)

> What do people think, do we need module persistent storage?

The primary reason that I've often lamented its removal is forauto-loaded sound drivers to store their mixer level on unload, in orderto reset to the same values upon being reloaded.

> This will probably be a 2.5 change but I want to get an idea of the> requirements before coding anything.

Strictly speaking, all the inter_module_xxx stuff should probably wait for2.5.

-- dwmw2

-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/